D&D General How do you do smart chaotic evil?

[Maxperson]

Back to the OP. If you think a chaotic person only acts arbitrarily then chaotic alignments are pointless and don't represent any significant portion of any species. Even demons have a hierarchy enforced through violence and a demon that just randomly attacks other demons isn't going to last long.

I don't think that's true, though. A certain minority of the population is crazy(CN and CE). There aren't many of them around. CG has a larger number and is not crazy, but is still a minority.

The overwhelming number of people on Earth are neutral. They don't care who is in power, what the laws are, etc., so long as they can pretty much do their own thing and aren't harmed by those in power.

It takes dedication to law, chaos, good or evil to move from neutral into those aspects of alignment that the vast majority of humans just don't have. Not many have the dedication to law without regard to good or evil to become a judge or prosecutor. Not many have the dedication to good to risk themselves standing up to oppression. Not many have the dedication to evil required to rape and murder others. Not many are dedicated to seeing chaos reign.

So if that's your stance, no you can't have an intelligent CE NPC. Move on. Make them NE that ignores all laws, external definition of morality and does whatever they think they can get away with. Maybe they make decisions arbitrarily that may include sudden acts of violence that are not well thought out, even ones they may regret later. I would say a rose by any other name would still be CE but you do you.

There's no need to move on, though. Monsters(NPCs that are moral monsters and actual monsters) are..............monsters. CE and CN can fit them just fine.

Or ... look at what some CE monsters do for inspiration. Red dragons for example ".... take whatever they desire and burn to ash anything that stands in their way .... believe themselves to be the greatest ... of all creatures. To them, pillaging and conquering are their right .... other creatures are privileged to serve them." Another random monster (one I happened to be looking at for inspiration for an NPC) is the death knight "Champions of evil, death knights are armor-clad, skeletal warlords. Combining devastating martial prowess and blasphemous magic, these undying tyrants lead unholy legions against the living or brood in cursed citadels. Every death knight is haunted by a legacy of tragedy and dishonor that drives it to commit greater evils." Not sure how you can lead unholy legions is everything you do is arbitrary.

Red dragons are might makes right. Nothing there goes against what I have been arguing in this thread. Death Knights have their legions who are bound to them by their might as a much more powerful undead. You don't have to treat undead right to get them to serve you.

If the whim strikes a Death Knight to go invade the neighboring king with his legions, he will do that. You don't need to be lawful to lead by strength and terror. And leading by strength and terror doesn't make you smart in your actions.

Demons are probably the extreme examples of an entire group of monsters having a CE alignment yet they have armies and commanders of armies. They still have rulers with goals and plans. The hierarchy is just maintained through fear and violence not by laws or pre-established hierarchies. That Vrock doesn't serve in the army led by a Balor because they respect the Balor's title, they do it because they're allowed to do much of what they want to anyway and if they don't follow rules the Balor will have them for lunch.

Demons have plans, and those plans are like, go invade the first layer of hell and kill devils. They outnumber devils by a huge margin, but their chaotic nature makes them so disorganized in battle that the lawful devils can hold their own. Again, leading armies and having disorganized/insane plans isn't lawful or smart.

Once more, this is just how the alignments have been written since 1e. Not how I use them personally in my game.

 

[AlViking]

I don't think that's true, though. A certain minority of the population is crazy(CN and CE). There aren't many of them around. CG has a larger number and is not crazy, but is still a minority.

The overwhelming number of people on Earth are neutral. They don't care who is in power, what the laws are, etc., so long as they can pretty much do their own thing and aren't harmed by those in power.

It takes dedication to law, chaos, good or evil to move from neutral into those aspects of alignment that the vast majority of humans just don't have. Not many have the dedication to law without regard to good or evil to become a judge or prosecutor. Not many have the dedication to good to risk themselves standing up to oppression. Not many have the dedication to evil required to rape and murder others. Not many are dedicated to seeing chaos reign.

There's no need to move on, though. Monsters(NPCs that are moral monsters and actual monsters) are..............monsters. CE and CN can fit them just fine.

Red dragons are might makes right. Nothing there goes against what I have been arguing in this thread. Death Knights have their legions who are bound to them by their might as a much more powerful undead. You don't have to treat undead right to get them to serve you.

If the whim strikes a Death Knight to go invade the neighboring king with his legions, he will do that. You don't need to be lawful to lead by strength and terror. And leading by strength and terror doesn't make you smart in your actions.

Demons have plans, and those plans are like, go invade the first layer of hell and kill devils. They outnumber devils by a huge margin, but their chaotic nature makes them so disorganized in battle that the lawful devils can hold their own. Again, leading armies and having disorganized/insane plans isn't lawful or smart.

Once more, this is just how the alignments have been written since 1e. Not how I use them personally in my game.

It's obvious that nothing I, or the books, say will change anything. There is no reason to insist that every CN or CE is insane but you do you.

 

[Maxperson]

There is no reason to insist that every CN or CE is insane but you do you.

Well that's objectively false. All of the bolded portions of D&D General - How do you do smart chaotic evil? are reasons to think that. You can believe the reasons or not, and those reasons can be correct or not, but they ARE reasons.

 

[NotAYakk]

I have been playing with a model to give bonds alignments. Along this way I had to make Law and Chaos a bit less flanderized.

Lawful elevates abstractions over individuals.
Chaos elevates individuals over abstractions.

If you are loyal to the Crown and not the current Queen, that is a Lawful loyalty.

If you are loyal to the current Queen and not the Crown, that is a Chaotic loyalty.

This can easily extend to entire societies, without the Chaotic societies being gonzo or otherwise stupid or ineffective.

Each could even pass on their loyalty to the heir - but for the Chaotic, it is because the ruler loves their heir, and the Chaotic person protects what their passed Queen loved in her honor. For the Lawful, it is because the rules of inheritance place the Crown upon the heir.

Societies can be built upon both principles in a continuum; a society can be more Chaotic or more Lawful in each and every piece, and as a sum have a tendency one way or the other. A reasonably complex society can be held together through interpersonal bonds (in fact, I suspect most societies need them). Dashes of Lawful style rules can exist in otherwise Chaotic societies (like rules about who becomes the next ruler, maybe involving a one-on-one fight, or whatever), and Chaotic bonds change the course of otherwise Lawful societies.

In a Lawful society, Chaotic acts are described as corrupt - helping your personal friend get a promotion in the government. In a Chaotic society, relying upon abstract rules (I am the heir! I deserve to be chief!) could be viewed as weakness and be looked down upon, reducing its strength.

With this framework, the 4 points of LG LE CG CE also are sensible, and none are (by requirement) psychopaths.

LG is someone who values abstract rules and principles and will selflessly sacrifice their own interests for them.
LE is someone who values abstract rules and principles as tools to selfishly advance their own interests with them.
CG is someone who values personal connections and companions and will selflessly sacrifice their own interests for them.
CE is someone who values personal connections and companions and will selfishly advance their own interests with them.

We can extend this to entire societies, or at least parts of them. No society is going to be uniform. LN/LG parts of LE societies will exist, as will CG and CE portions. The same will be true of CE societies having CN, CG and LE/LG portions or subsystems.

 

[AlViking]

Well that's objectively false. All of the bolded portions of D&D General - How do you do smart chaotic evil? are reasons to think that. You can believe the reasons or not, and those reasons can be correct or not, but they ARE reasons.

Really? My opinion that you are over-emphasizing a few words and taking a single phrase out of context and making it the sole defining characteristic (it's an example, not all encompassing of every choice ever made) is objectively wrong? That the the second sentence of chaotic evil directly contradicts your statement that CE can't have schemes? The overview of what alignment means being views on attitude towards order along with the descriptions of multiple monsters and NPCs is "objective"?

I'll add that to my list of things we disagree on.

 

[Maxperson]

Really? My opinion that you are over-emphasizing a few words and taking a single phrase out of context and making it the sole defining characteristic (it's an example, not all encompassing of every choice ever made) is objectively wrong?

That's very clearly not what I said.

That the the second sentence of chaotic evil directly contradicts your statement that CE can't have schemes?

Um, you do know that I've been saying that CE is also crazy, right? Mad schemes of revenge and havok doesn't contradict diddly of what I said.

The overview of what alignment means being views on attitude towards order along with the descriptions of multiple monsters and NPCs is "objective"?

Also very clearly not what I said.

I'll add that to my list of things we disagree on.

Feel free to disagree with your own Strawman argument all you like. Are you going to respond to the argument that I made?

 

[AlViking]

That's very clearly not what I said.

Um, you do know that I've been saying that CE is also crazy, right? Mad schemes of revenge and havok doesn't contradict diddly of what I said.

Also very clearly not what I said.

Feel free to disagree with your own Strawman argument all you like. Are you going to respond to the argument that I made?

Yes I know you've been saying that every creature labeled CN and CE are insane. I disagree. I don't think red dragons are insane - they're cruel, think they're better than everyone else and deserve to rule over everyone else. That doesn't make them unable to make plans or think rationally.

 

[Maxperson]

Yes I know you've been saying that every creature labeled CN and CE are insane. I disagree. I don't think red dragons are insane - they're cruel, think they're better than everyone else and deserve to rule over everyone else. That doesn't make them unable to make plans or think rationally.

And you can disagree. But all the parts I bolded are objective things that do count as reasons to believe what I believe. As I said, you can believe otherwise, and I could be wrong, but they ARE in fact reasons. All I said was that your claim that there was no reason to believe what I am saying is objectively wrong, not that your beliefs are objectively wrong.

As for mad schemes, there's no credible interpretation of that sentence that doesn't involve being some amount of crazy. That's what "mad" means. Had it just said schemes, your interpretation would be credible. That you had to take it out of context and leave out both "mad" and "havok" is telling.

 

[Hriston]

The AD&D PHB (p 33) has this about CE alignment:

​

Chaotic Evil: The major precepts of this alignment are freedom, randomness, and woe. Laws and order, kindness, and good deeds are disdained. Life has no value. By promoting chaos and evil, those of this alignment hope to bring themselves to positions of power, glory, and prestige in a system ruled by individual caprice and their own whims.​

The AD&D DMG (p 24) has this to say:

​

CHAOTIC EVIL: The chaotic evil creature holds that individual freedom and choice is important, and that other individuals and their freedoms are unimportant if they cannot be held by the individuals through their own strength and merit. Thus, law and order tends to promote not individuals but groups, and groups suppress individual volition and success.​

So I would play a "smart" CE character as seeking to enhance their personal power without regard for the lives, rights, or happiness of others, respecting the power of others only insomuch as it poses a threat to the character's. And I would put an 11 or higher in Intelligence.

 

[bsss]

Once more, this is just how the alignments have been written since 1e. Not how I use them personally in my game.

If you don't use the alignments as written (your interpretation aside), why are you digging in on book definitions in a thread asking for and full of suggestions and alternative interpretations to meet a certain purpose? No one is asking to have the book read for them.